Forum:Allowable content
This stems from my comment re: Logan MacLeod as a featured article. Going into a separate discussion from the above: This is the problem we keep running into: Making stuff up for this wiki. It's also unfair and hypocritical to say we'll accept such & such, but not other such & such. If anyone can make up anything they want, then technically, Homesun/Zman stuff should be allowed. And, incidentally, putting up such material as "featured" (meaning the best of what this wiki offers and allows) sends the signal that it IS okay to do that, which may cause only more problems down the road. Where does the line get drawn, and when? (Something to think about.) I'm starting to think we should just throw that whole argument out the window, let anyone do whatever they want, and let the chips fall, because we can't keep telling people "Oh, you can do this, but you can't do that", based on some sort of pre-judgment opinion of maturity in content perhaps, which is arguably subjective. That's just not fair either. 11:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC) :My personal feeling is that whatever is allowed should have some type of external source for the material. For example, TotSF is a web series. You can go to the website, check out the episodes, etc. This wiki is used to expand upon that. However, should an external source (usually a website, since it's easily verifyable) not exist, then we must ask ourselves why would such an item be worthy of inclusion here? Even concept pieces, such as Star Trek: Origins, are fine if they have somewhere to go for back-up. If something exists ONLY on this wiki, I don't think it should be allowed. Just my $0.02. --JusticeCEO 12:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC) ::Definitely wasted money -- that stance would necessitate the deletion of most of my original contributions, even though I plan to publish them, CEO. Its really an unnecessary tack to take -- assaulting my creations' validity just because you don't like someone else's. Keep in mind some of the most prominent sources we have here have never been published anywhere -- ST: Unity for example, existed here for years and the first episode just came out a month ago -- would you have suggested we start deleting everything by our founder Luke80? Should I go nominate Defenders of the Federation for deletion? Its one our better article sets, and was added with good faith on a policy of welcoming such content. ::There has to be some sort of middle ground -- how about a "questionable content" notice so that questionable, unsourced content can be evaluated. Maybe if the author is originating the work here, and its published nowhere else, we can suggest changes based on a community consensus. A lot of people around here seem to think that the only two possibilities are "keep" and "delete" (or worse, "keep" and "ban").. its really stupid to not have a stopgap in place that lets us deal openly with the creator in question and make him change his contributions to fit a community's idea of what an acceptable contribution is rather than changing the rules and basis of this wiki to disallow originality and 'banning everyone who has an idea you don't like.. instead you should dictate a form of respectful community criticism so that you can allow for the improvement of articles you consider "substandard" ::It could be as simple as moving all contributions that several people vote as being "substandard" or "untoawrdly fanboyish" right to the person's userpage -- tell them, "sorry, this isn't up to snuff" and continue to exclude their work (not excluding them personally through a ban) until they are willing to get it approved to add to the community.. -- Captain M.K.B. 14:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC) ::: If there are any problems with STO, advise me to copy it all and move to another site. I need to said, that a much of thing of STO that i put here, are "Concept Art's" and ideas or sugerences that will be used or not used in STO (like the F8, or the warp 8 core and the "time barrier"). But many of these ideas that i put, was showed before in STO forum, and get some kind of "approval" (for example, i will put some info of the "Elasi Pirates" this weekend, but i dont put any for the moment of the Hydrans, Lyrans, and other bit races thinked for be used in STO, because i not get any kind of "approval" or "reject" in the STO forums). Plus, i like use STO articles in STEUD like a wiki "bible" of STO, for quick search, quick update, quick reference, keep compatibility which other fan films (and fanfics) keeping cannon, and can be used for any member of STO creew for get all creew update for trek tech in STO, characters, ships, races, ideas, etc... (i saw some problems of desync of people working wich reject ideas or ideas that are wrong which cannon in STO) Also, much things that i put here, can be used for anybody, and i try to keep compatible which canon (like the "Time Barrier" or phased lasers) Sorry for my bizarre English ZardoZ 14:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC) :: I corrected some grammar, but the statement "If there any problems with STO, advise me to copy it all and move to another site." is very telling -- one more user contributing in good faith -- and possibly helping us expand into an international or interlingual edition -- who is getting ready to be kicked off the site. -- Captain M.K.B. 14:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC) :::OK, where did that hostility come from? All I said was that there should be somewhere to go to see that something is not a wiki only contribution. There are plenty of free hosting services where people can put items up and show that something is being done. By no means do I want to stifle anyone's creativity. Now, as to your examples, Unity had a forum and website long before anything was published. The same with Origins. They've got a very active forum and a decently designed website, and they haven't filmed one second of footage yet. Is it really that bad to ask for a back-up of what people want to contribute here? I don't want every little nuance somewhere else, just that there is some reason to be included beyond saying that you want to be included. (Sheesh.) --JusticeCEO 15:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC) ::I'm not hostile, just matter-of-fact. Sorry. I love you guys and would totally kiss you if you were all here. On the lips. Not hostile. Sorry if i sounded like a petulant seven-year old. Sorry sorry sorry. ::Are we better? -- Captain M.K.B. 15:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC) :::Sure, we're good. I just wanted to throw an idea out there and see what people thought. It's not like I can make any changes anyway (I'm no admin), I just had an idea and posted it. --JusticeCEO 15:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Responding to this: : ...it's really stupid to not have a stopgap in place that lets us deal openly with the creator...of...banning everyone who has an idea you don't like... ::You act as if the problems with Homesun were primarily about his content being substandard. The content could have been fixed, but he wouldn't communicate. We were willing to work with him, but he wasn't willing to work with us. We tried to help him, and he either wouldn't respond or told us to pound sand. Without communication, there's nothing anyone could do to help him, and so he just keeps on doing his thing, disregarding everything from propper formatting and good spelling, to even something as neccessary as providing context to his articles. He writes something like "Jane Doe lived on the station and was friends with Bob the Gorn" and leaves it there, with no more information, no clue as to what station, what it's about, nothing. How is anyone supposed to copy edit that? And when we ask him for more information, we get ignored or worse. ::No one is or was out to get him because we don't like him. I twisted myself in knots trying to communicate with him, and he wouldn't. And yet you keep on making it seem like it was a personal crusade against him because we, or at least I, "didn't like him." That is simply not the case, and I'm bloody well tired of you harping on it. ::As for Zman, we gave him opportunities to improve his material, and his abusive conduct was what resulted in his ban months ago, not his content. His sock puppetry was what banned him this time. Responding to this: :...instead you should dictate a form of respectful community criticism so that you can allow for the improvement of articles you consider "substandard" ::That's ideal, if the author is willing to communicate. Responding to the main topic: :Back when it all started with Zman, that was when this idea of "everything must be sourced" first came up, as a stopgap against inappropriate content. The idea was discussed, and has gone through discussions since then, none of which ever really came to a conclusion. I brought up the idea of some kind of "court of peer review" back then, but it never really got discussed that I recall. :And as I said when I brought this topic up here, if the community so decides, I'll gladly remove Pendragon data that isn't available online in some form already -my pilot episode is online at TWGuild at least. :Thinking more about it, for the RPG material, a lot of it can't be as adequately sourced as we might like because so much of it doesn't exist on websites, but in email lists that those of us outside a particular group can't coroborate. Yet, the sims do have websites (or did, if they're defunct) that detail concept, if not content, so the proof of their existence - and validity - is there. That's enough for rpg type stuff IMHO, but does it apply to fiction and film? Just proof, or the assertion, that something exists outside of the author's mind. In the case of Pendragon, it's shown to exist on TWGuild.com, STPMA and several forums. :I'm not sure if Logan has anything online, but looking at his stuff it's clear to me that it's not all in his head. I'm cool with that, if other people are. Unlike Homesun and Zman, it's clear that Logan is not thinking up things on his middle school lunch period and throwing nonsensical material on the wiki when he gets home because it's "kewl." Published online or not, his stuff would pass any "peer review" I could think of. :So how do we set an objective measure of what is good content and what is not good content that either needs to be improved if the author is willing, or removed, if the author won't communicate or behave. Requiring an outside reference point is probably the easiest way to do that. Is it the only way, or the best way? I honestly can't tell anymore. :I feel like we just keep going in circles with this. Please, people, decide something. I don't know how much more of this I can take. --TimPendragon 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC) ::That's why I said I'm starting to think we should just throw the whole argument out the window--because all we're doing is spinning our wheels. I think everything should be sourced, so we have that guideline as a fallback when we tell someone, 'sorry, we can't accept this here', but like Tim said, and as I've acknowledged elsewhere, in some cases it will be downright difficult if not impossible (i.e., defunct RPGs). True, "quality" will stand out on its own, but I could make up something right now that would stand out heads and shoulders above, just for example, Homesun's contributions--and it would be nothing more than something I fabricated completely for STEU. We can't keep riding the fence and making determinations on what, in a few people's opinions, is or isn't "good enough" based on the wiki entry itself. Not everyone will agree, and you can't please everyone all of the time. And if it causes this wiki to degenerate into a chaotic muck, maybe it was just inevitable. (None of this is said to impinge anyone's work here already--Tim's, Kevin's, Logan's, anyone. It's actually defending it. As a side note, to Tim and Kevin, I offered to give you guys a space on my website to back up your stuff. I have the room. You haven't responded.) 03:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC) : So, I'm confused. As far as I can see, this User:Homesun apparently has unverified contributions, possibly only added to this wiki. Some believe this is acceptable and some don't. If, "hypothetically," I had fan fiction ideas surrounding Robert April, could I add them to this wiki, with the intention of releasing them at a later date... or would I have to write at least one fan fiction somewhere and "expand" my universe here... or would I have to write several fan fiction stories and only use the external information here (so other's can read them and more easily contribute). What does anyone think?--Tim Thomason 18:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (I guess I should use a different name for this wiki, what with the famous "Tim" being around) ::ohhhhhhh boy Here we go again. Decide something, people, and let me know. I'm keeping my nose out of this. --TimPendragon 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC) :Welcome Tim Thomason. I don't think there would be a problem if "serious" (everyone feel free to use your own defination) contributions are made to articles. If you were in the middle of writing fiction about Robert April and you wanted to add a note on the article that in "Star Trek Tim Thomason" (sample fiction title name) Robert April did x, y, and Z. The problem we have with users like Homesun is he (or she) doesn't add anything to an article outside of a grocery list of names or places. -- Sneg Admin•Talk 20:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC) ::Welcome Tim. :-) I think that articles with no source are alright, because a lot of people have done that already on this site (with really good articles). Maybe we can still use the 'must have a source' as a background guidline and place some kind of 'source not yet created' note on those pages with no sources yet? (Or some kind of note that doesn't sound negative). Just an idea I guess. Also, I was wondering about the articles that are copied from MA; that maybe they shouldn't focus so much detail on events (etc) that happened in the TV series, movies or novels - and instead focus more on their involvement in people's fan fiction/fan films. If a character's or ship's involvment on a TV show or novel is directly relevant to a fan film, then it would make sense to have that detail (depending on how important that detail is to the fan film/fan fiction). Anyway, maybe that's a discussion for another thread? Either way, just thought I'd drop a line. Happy New Years everyone. :-D --Hawku 21:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC) :::Re: articles copied from MA: Definitely agree, Hawku. I've said that in the past. 21:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)